Jump to content

Little Cypress-Mauriceville 42 Lumberton 32/FINAL


Recommended Posts

  • AggiesAreWe changed the title to Little Cypress-Mauriceville 42 Lumberton 32/FINAL
1 hour ago, Knox34 said:

I would like those coach Mitchell fans to explain to me how a team for holding the ball for 6 minutes in 1 quarter while losing by 6-8 is great coaching.  

My understanding is he did it in the 2nd period. Halftime was tied 16/16. So if he was down at that time and ended up with a tie, im unsure of the issue? Proba ly not fun as a fan but He probably keeping the score close to give himself a shot. It's classic Mitchell. He knew he was outgunned most likely giving his team a chance with low score. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Knox34 said:

I would like those coach Mitchell fans to explain to me how a team for holding the ball for 6 minutes in 1 quarter while losing by 6-8 is great coaching.  

I understand that LCM didn't pressure the ball either. It really is a both way issue to me. But as a fan, I wouldn't like to watch it either. I'd like to see more possessions too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man when you lose by 10 and you cut your teams momentum and energy by standing around and cut their opportunities of scoring and getting in a flow that seems like a game killer to me. But I was not there and it seems like it didn’t turn out the way he was hoping. When lumberton did beat Lcm I don’t recall him trying to keep it in the 30’s. One would think you try to repeat that game plan 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Knox34 said:

It’s hard to question the lcm coach for not pressuring the ball up by 8 and other team is standing at half court  

My thoughts too.  Why would I pressure the ball when I have a 2-3 possession lead and I’m essentially being given an opportunity to rest my players and shorten the game?  I might have questioned Jeffcoat if he HAD pressured the ball in that instant. 
 

Good win for the Bears though.  Seems like they are getting stuff figured out and may be separating themselves from the rest of the field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Here’s a link to another story about it This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
    • It’s behind a paywall but here’s Baytown Sun’s story on it.  It was reported on in other papers statewide so if you search by the date I think you’ll find other stories on it. UIL strengthens student transfer rules By Ron McDowell [email protected] Oct 18, 2024   In order to maintain a level playing field for all member schools, the University Interscholastic League strengthened rules regarding transfer student eligibility at its most recent meeting in Austin. Every year thousands of students transfer schools in the state of Texas. A student’s ability to participate in UIL sanctioned activities may be limited base on the reasons for the transfer. A change in family status, work transfers, enrollment in an academic magnet program, or a move across town, receive scrutiny, but only rarely does one of these reasons result in the loss of eligibility. The only reason to automatically cause the loss of participation eligibility is a transfer for athletic purposes. The current rule, which has been in place since 1981, does not require a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPFs) to be submitted if the student-athlete does not participate in a varsity level sport during the first year of enrollment. There has been growing concern among some member schools, that other members are breaking the current rule and creating “super teams” with new transfer enrollees, and that the UIL is not doing enough to police, what appear to be, the inordinate number of transfers among high school athletes. To mitigate these concerns, the UIL approved a proposal to expand the power of the State Executive Committee (SEC) and allow it to investigate schools based upon the number of PAPFs submitted. Schools that submit an inordinate number of PAPFs would face heightened scrutiny and possible public reprimand and future sanctions. The UIL has also changed the requirements for PAPF submission, mandating that the form be submitted before a grade 9-12 transfer student may participate at any level of school athletics. This is a marked departure from the current policy which encourages schools not to complete PAPFs for students who transfer in, if the school believes that the student will not play a varsity sport in the first year the student is enrolled at the new school. Some critics of the current system think that the change doesn’t go far enough. Speaking on background, one local school district source suggested that there should be an automatic year wait for transfer students due to the number of loopholes in the waiver process. “If a student transfers, it should be a year out of competition automatically,” the source said. In addition, the UIL also approved a proposal that gives the SEC the power to appoint an independent administrator to oversee the conduct of the local District Executive Committee (DEC) if it is determined that the DEC is not consistently enforcing the rules of the governing body. The change is significant since all appeals that a school brings, starts and usually ends with the DEC. That includes the determination of transfer student eligibility. It is believed that with the implementation of this change, schools in a UIL district will be less likely to face retribution from the DEC chair and other members. The policy changes will go into effect, Aug. 1, 2025 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • I was hoping WOS was going to win. To get another chance to redeem ourself. Silsbee did not look good in that game and has not played consistent during the season. Hopefully against La Vega they will play 4quarters of football
    • This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up   GCCISD paid a firm called PASA to compile this report ahead of them closing/consolidating some schools and redrawing attendance zones.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...